Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

thebetter1 - by definition a Thunderhammer is NOT a powerfist, it is like a powerfist *with extra bonuses* - meaning it cannot be a powerfist, as a powerfist is completely defined.

Template weapons have Range: Template. Until you can show how you do not check range using the template you are just wrong on this.

Ok, so I'll do a big update any sec, but just to offer reply (this is a long one, get readyyy!!)

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Wobbly Model Rule means models can move in any direction, including into mid-air, and then be removed from the table as 'unstable', as long as both players know where they should be. Potentially, you can move ALL your models like this if you wish.

Only if terrain makes it difficult to place the model there. The lack of terrain is not terrain.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Non-vehicle models without eyes cannot shoot. (The rulebook requires you to check line of sight from the model's eyes. Wraithlords, for example, do not have any)

Then just model some eyes on them.

Wouldn't this be modelling for advantage?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- The Rage USR does not work, as you cannot check Line of Sight in the movement phase.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean with this one. It is perfectly legal to look at the table in any phase from any angle, and line of sight is clearly defined among English speakers.

But Line of Sight is a game concept, as listed on page 16 of the rulebook. It is something that is checked as step 1 of making a shooting attack.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Any weapon which refers to a 'Large Blast Template' or 'Blast Template' cannot be used. There is no such thing. There ARE, however, Blast 'Markers'.

Unless, of course, you speak English.

Again, game concept. A digital weapon is not a digital laser, a Heavy Bolter is not a Bolter, and a Blast Template is not a Blast Marker.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- 'Moves like Jump Infantry' does not mean 'uses all the movement rules for Jump Infantry', so some models with Wings cannot Deep Strike, dependent on codex.

See the tenth point on this list.

Now this is a long and complex one with a few threads all to itself (and all probably locked given the sort of arguments that result). Either way, I don't see how Scout not being capitalized makes a difference?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Turret mounted heavy flamers cannot be used, as their template will target a friendly model (the tank hull)

Placing a template is not measuring range or checking line of sight, so the template should actually be placed anywhere in contact with the hull.

Actually, this is a really interesting one. Are we putting in a new silly rule? Flamer weapons don't actually have to touch the nozzle of the weapon, and can fire from any point on the hull?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- While Seize Ground and Capture & Control both instruct you to Start the Game!, Annihilation doesn't. You cannot ever start an Annihilation game.

Those instructions are redundant. You are told to Start the Game somewhere else anyway.

Where?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- There are no rules for deployment.

We should care because...

Permissive ruleset means you can only do things you're specifically instructed how to do? Because, RAW, I can deploy on a different table in a different room, silly as that obviously is...

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Deep Strike mishaps never occur. DS is part of the rules for movement, which require you to stop any model when it comes within 1" of an enemy, even when it DS scatters.

See the fifth point on this list.

Again, don't see the connection between this and the Jump Infantry thing...

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Nobody can make Scouts moves. Deployment requires you to make any 'Scout' moves. There is no USR called 'Scout'

"Scout" in this instance is not capitalized and is clearly an adjective. Claiming it is a noun makes no sense in the English language.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Shrike's unit cannot deploy as Infiltrators (since the unit only gets the rule after he joins them, and he can't join them until after deployment)

Correct. However, the rule still works just fine.

Well, Shrike can infiltrate, and he can give Infiltrate to his squad, but only AFTER infiltrators have already been placed. If that's the intention, then yes it works fine...

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Space Marine 'models in teminator armour' are relentless, but only 'Terminators' (the unit) cannot sweeping advance and count as two models in a vehicle.

Yes, I heard you the first time, and the second time, and however many more times you listed this same fact for different armies. Nice list inflation.

The reason for multiple mentions is because, as listed earlier in the thread, it's different for almost EVERY codex. And almost every codex has a different silly broken bit. Hence why it's mentioned differently for each army...

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Ironclad dreadnoughts have two special close combat weapons, therefore they can't USE them both in the same turn.

By definition they are both dreadnought close combat weapons, therefore they can use them both in the same turn.

P42, a Special Close Combat weapon is defined as anything that is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon or a pistol. If using Two Different Special Weapons, the model must choose which one to use that turn. The rule therefore relies on the question "Are a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and a Seismic Hammer different things?" Well, they have different names, and different rules and the Ironclad is listed as having one of each, so...

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- Master of the Forge cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.
- Lysander cannot bolster defenses as the rule refers to a Techmarine.

This doesn't stop the ruin from getting +1 to its cover save. I really don't care if my model was not able to climb around the ruin and board up the windows, I still get to nominate 1 ruin to get +1 to its cover save.

Well this is the same as the Doom of Malantai/Zoanthrope thing too. I don't care either, and you'd be able to use it playing me, but this thead is about stupid rule wording. The rule makes numerous references to the Techmarine who is doing the bolstering. Lysander is not a Techmarine.

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- A Techmarine with a Thunderfire Cannon 'doesn't benefit from the IC rule unless the cannon is destroyed'. However, he doesn't have the IC status, so doesn't count as an IC even if it IS destroyed.

I read the rule as stopping an IC from joining the combined unit, as that would be a benefit to the Techmarine.

Well the silliness comes from the idea that he was intended to have IC, but doesn't any more. Are you saying that, once the cannon is destroyed, no characters can THEN join him, since he is now an IC? But if he was a regular techmarine (infantry) then characters could join him?

thebetter1 wrote:

ArbitorIan wrote:
- You can charge out of a Land Raider in the enemy's turn, if it's wrecked and the unit is forced to disembark. Models 'may assault the turn they disembark from any access point'.

The enemy has to pick this unit for it to be able to assault on his turn, according to the assault phase rules. Don't count on that happening.

Aha! Good point. Shall be changed.

nosferatu1001 wrote:thebetter1 - by definition a Thunderhammer is NOT a powerfist, it is like a powerfist *with extra bonuses* - meaning it cannot be a powerfist, as a powerfist is completely defined.

Okay, that was a bad example that someone else started out of context. Try considering power fists and power weapons.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Template weapons have Range: Template. Until you can show how you do not check range using the template you are just wrong on this.

I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Wouldn't this be modelling for advantage?

Is this a RAW thread or not?

ArbitorIan wrote:
But Line of Sight is a game concept, as listed on page 16 of the rulebook. It is something that is checked as step 1 of making a shooting attack.

The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Now this is a long and complex one with a few threads all to itself (and all probably locked given the sort of arguments that result). Either way, I don't see how Scout not being capitalized makes a difference?

Didn't I already make it clear I was pointing to a different entry, the tenth one on the original list?

ArbitorIan wrote:
Where?

Page 86: "Start the game!"

ArbitorIan wrote:
Permissive ruleset means you can only do things you're specifically instructed how to do? Because, RAW, I can deploy on a different table in a different room, silly as that obviously is...

Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?

ArbitorIan wrote:
Again, don't see the connection between this and the Jump Infantry thing...

One ruling treats the whole deep striking process as movement, the other acts like it is not movement at all, and both appeared together on the same list.

ArbitorIan wrote:
P42, a Special Close Combat weapon is defined as anything that is not a Normal Close Combat Weapon or a pistol. If using Two Different Special Weapons, the model must choose which one to use that turn. The rule therefore relies on the question "Are a Dreadnought Close Combat Weapon and a Seismic Hammer different things?" Well, they have different names, and different rules and the Ironclad is listed as having one of each, so...

Seriously, you're arguing with the rulebook on this one. The codex says that they are the same thing, and you say they are not.

ArbitorIan wrote:
Well this is the same as the Doom of Malantai/Zoanthrope thing too. I don't care either, and you'd be able to use it playing me, but this thead is about stupid rule wording. The rule makes numerous references to the Techmarine who is doing the bolstering. Lysander is not a Techmarine.

No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.

FlingitNow wrote:
But still not for models with out eyes, which is entirely the point. nAs to the later point and "my view" on cionvertions I really don't get what you're saying. Comnvertions by RaW are not allowed, you're free to try to get GW to caste models that currently have no eyes in versions with eyes. I guessing they won't and until they do the rule is still true.

Sure, in GwarHammer.

FlingitNow wrote:
If you have such a problem with the thread why are you even bothering to post on it?

Maybe because it spills out into so many other threads?

FlingitNow wrote:
Please provide a rules reference for when you are given direct permission to check LoS outside of the shooting phase. You are given permission do to it during the shooting phase I see no rules that allow you to do it at other times.

The Rage USR.

FlingitNow wrote:
Sorry but the burden of proof is on you. A template weapon is a ranged weapon and follows ALL the normal rules for firing a ranged weapon except any specific exceptions for template weapons. Thus it is assumed to be checking range and done how all other measuring is done unloess you can prove otherwise.

Great, you just proved a point nobody was disputing.

FlingitNow wrote:
If you consider, context and derive are not RaW arguments.

Why not? Are you implying that reading is not a part of RAW?

FlingitNow wrote:
What has this got to do with wghat I understood when i first read the rule? I understood when I first read the rule that the Doom has a 3++ save, that Shrike allows a unit without infiltrate to infiltrate with him, that the Swarmlord is Hive Tyrant for rules purposes etc etc etc.

If you understood the meaning of a word when you first read it, you cannot claim it has no clear meaning. Understanding what a rule does is a different matter.

FlingitNow wrote:
"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."

Get it now?

Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.

So many quotes...

Also – GwarHammer, i lol'd

Ok with the whole Lysander thing . . . If you had Lysander and a basic Techmarine in the army, could you just say that the techmarine bolsters the defenses due to Lysander being there?

"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."

So surely that would work? Not the way it's intended, but work it would none-the-less =D

Oshova

Oshova wrote:Ok with the whole Lysander thing . . . If you had Lysander and a basic Techmarine in the army, could you just say that the techmarine bolsters the defenses due to Lysander being there?

"When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster."

So surely that would work? Not the way it's intended, but work it would none-the-less =D

Oshova

Yes, but a Techmarine has Bolster Defenses anyway, so it doesn't matter if Lysander is there or not.

Right, ok. Some good points.

@thebetter1 - Cool - i thought you meant the tenth point on YOUR list, hence confusion. I think you might be right about the lysander thing though. Anyway, lots of points - i'll clear all this up and do an update any second by reading all the relevant rules carefully and in the most wilfully literal way 0 it wouldn't be RAW otherwise....!

thebetter1 wrote:
I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.

Check any weapon. Under "Range" in the table, it says "Template". Ergo, placing the template is checking range. The Template has nothing to do with Blast Markers. Besides, Blast isn't under the range section, so your comparison doesn't work.

thebetter1 wrote:Is this a RAW thread or not?

It doesn't matter. Even if you model eyes onto your Wraithlord, it doesn't change the fact that if your Wraithlord doesn't have eyes, it can't shoot. You're proposing a workaround, not a dispute to the RAW.

thebetter1 wrote:
The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.

Please explain, using non-shooting related rules quotes, how I check LoS in the movement phase for the Rage rule.

thebetter1 wrote:
Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?

General applies. General tells me to deploy. I take that as to 'generally' deploy. I deploy on the bookshelf and take potshots at your army. No where does it tell me to put models on the table.

thebetter1 wrote:
No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.

No, the RAW does not work that way. You cannot cut entire parts out like that. If it says "When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster." You cannot shorten it to "When you deploy nominate one ruin to bolster.", because that isn't following the original sentence. It's like changing "The Chaos Gods can manipulate Horus to kill the Emperor" to "The Chaos Gods can kill the Emperor." They can, but only by using Horus. Likewise, you can, but by using the techmarine.

thebetter1 wrote:
Sure, in GwarHammer.

In True RAW. The convention followed in this thread. If we continue down this track, we'll just end up screaming TFG at each other, so allow me to remind you that none of these rulings are what we would seriously play, and this entire thread is an exercise in proving how thoroughly stupid following the RAW to the letter is.

thebetter1 wrote:Maybe because it spills out into so many other threads?

Then argue in the other threads. No one invades the 40k forum if it starts bleeding into Dakka Discussions, so don't attack this thread because it spills into others.

thebetter1 wrote:
The Rage USR.

That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.

thebetter1 wrote:
Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.

That's kind of the idea in a rules debate. To quote the part of the rule that goes against the opponent's argument.

The Rage USR.

That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.

Cheers for the break down Pika I think this guy is just arguing for the sake of it because this thread dares to poke fun at RaW.

I asked him for a rules reference that states you check LoS in any phase other than the shooting phase. He just states a USR without quoting any text. the reason he hasn't? You guessed it because the Rage USR does not mention LoS or checking LoS at anytime let alone giving you specific instructions to do so during the movement phase...

Much like He's claimed eth SM Codex has said that a Seismic Hammer is a DCCW yet as I've posted over eth page it says no such thing.

He's just making up rules and when we post the rules that prove him wrong his great response is:

"Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point."

You couldn't make it up...

SM Chapter Master Orbital bombardment scatters a single shot not a blast marker of any sort.

Kommissar Kel wrote:SM Chapter Master Orbital bombardment scatters a single shot not a blast marker of any sort.

As I already told you in the other thread, you are wrong. Dead Wrong.

Ordnance Barrage ALWAYS uses the Large Blast Marker, and it is VERY CLEARLY described in the rules. Check them out!

Ah I see now it is in the Barrage section of the Shooting weapons not in Ordnance Barrage in the vehicles. I had looked for it in the vehicle section.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
I never disagreed with this point. What I did disagree with was that the process of placing the template to see how many models are hit is not checking range, just like checking how many models are under a blast marker is not checking range either.

Check any weapon. Under "Range" in the table, it says "Template". Ergo, placing the template is checking range. The Template has nothing to do with Blast Markers. Besides, Blast isn't under the range section, so your comparison doesn't work.

You have no idea how many people have said this exact same thing without reading my argument. The fact that a weapon's range is template does not mean placing the template in such a way so as to cover as many enemy models as possible and then counting up the number hit is a form of checking range.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
The definition of Line of Sight is defined without any reference to shooting. The next paragraph tells you how to apply it to shooting.

Please explain, using non-shooting related rules quotes, how I check LoS in the movement phase for the Rage rule.

Page 16, the largest paragraph in the right column. It is to big to quote under fair use, but there is absolutely no mention of applying only for shooting.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
Are you saying that general instructions do not apply because they are not specific?

General applies. General tells me to deploy. I take that as to 'generally' deploy. I deploy on the bookshelf and take potshots at your army. No where does it tell me to put models on the table.

This would break the deployment rules. Yes, they do actually exist, I just checked.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
Sure, in GwarHammer.

In True RAW. The convention followed in this thread. If we continue down this track, we'll just end up screaming TFG at each other, so allow me to remind you that none of these rulings are what we would seriously play, and this entire thread is an exercise in proving how thoroughly stupid following the RAW to the letter is.

Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.

Also, too many people are using the fact that these are not RAP rulings as proof that they must be supported under RAW.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
No, it is not. Funny that nobody ever argued this before the Doom of Malanthai? If you use the rule, leaving out the parts that the Techmarine does because you do not have a Techmarine, you end up with the player nominating a ruin, for apparently no reason at the time, which then gets +1 to its cover save by some magical force. It still works.

No, the RAW does not work that way. You cannot cut entire parts out like that. If it says "When you deploy nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster." You cannot shorten it to "When you deploy nominate one ruin to bolster.", because that isn't following the original sentence. It's like changing "The Chaos Gods can manipulate Horus to kill the Emperor" to "The Chaos Gods can kill the Emperor." They can, but only by using Horus. Likewise, you can, but by using the techmarine.

The way it really works is that you nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster. You do not have a Techmarine, so he does not bolster it. It then gets +1 to its cover save, regardless of whether any Techmarine was involved.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
The Rage USR.

That tells you to check LOS in the movement phase. How do I do that? My raging models are not "Firing models" nor are there "targeted units", so it clearly can't follow many of the shooting phase LOS rules.

See above.

Pika_power wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:
Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point.

That's kind of the idea in a rules debate. To quote the part of the rule that goes against the opponent's argument.

No, that is not debate at all. If you have a quote that proves the other side is right and you cut it down so that it does not appear that way, you made a fraudulent argument.

FlingitNow wrote:
I asked him for a rules reference that states you check LoS in any phase other than the shooting phase. He just states a USR without quoting any text. the reason he hasn't? You guessed it because the Rage USR does not mention LoS or checking LoS at anytime let alone giving you specific instructions to do so during the movement phase...

If that were true, it would not have been on the fun list of RAW fun to begin with.

FlingitNow wrote:
Much like He's claimed eth SM Codex has said that a Seismic Hammer is a DCCW yet as I've posted over eth page it says no such thing.

It says it is treated as a DCCW, which means it acts exactly the same way under all circumstances unless specified otherwise. In this case, the only exception is that it adds 1 to vehicle damage rolls.

FlingitNow wrote:
He's just making up rules and when we post the rules that prove him wrong his great response is:

"Great job quoting only the part of the rule that does not show my point."

You couldn't make it up...

You do realize I dealt with 17 quotes on this page, yet you fail to see why I was reluctant to quote from the codex? I'm not going to do your work for you. Because I described the rule in detail, your comments accuse me of lying. If I were you, I would not continue that accusation, otherwise I might actually post the rule and prove you wrong.

thebetter1 wrote:
You have no idea how many people have said this exact same thing without reading my argument. The fact that a weapon's range is template does not mean placing the template in such a way so as to cover as many enemy models as possible and then counting up the number hit is a form of checking range.

Let's cover this properly.

I fire a flamer from a turret on a tank. We go to the template rules in order to find out what happens.

"Place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it" (Pg. 29)

Wait, my tank doesn't have a base. Let's see in the vehicle rules have anything to say about it. Oh look, two possible interpretations!

"Instead for distances involving a vehicle, measure to and from the hull" (Pg. 56)

Well we could use this one I suppose, but is a flamer template really a 'distance'?

"When firing a vehicle's weapon, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon" (Pg. 56)

This sounds better. It's a weapon being fired, and Template is in the "Range" slot of the weapon. Unless there are objections, I think we'll use this interpretation. Back to the template rules!

""Place the template so that its narrow end is touching the base of the model firing it and the rest of the template covers as many models as possible in the target unit without touching any friendly models" (Pg. 29)

Now, what do we define as 'the narrow end of the template' and 'friendly model'? If the 'narrow end' is defined as 'the narrower half of the template' then there is no problem. If 'friendly model' does not include the firing model, everything's fine. If neither of those occur, then we get a broken rule.

thebetter1 wrote:
Page 16, the largest paragraph in the right column. It is to big to quote under fair use, but there is absolutely no mention of applying only for shooting.

"Taking in a view from behind the firing models to 'see what they see' "

Also, if we only follow that paragraph, it means with Rage, it's perfectly viable to turn your models around so they don't see the enemy. Also, they can't see through each other.

thebetter1 wrote:This would break the deployment rules. Yes, they do actually exist, I just checked.

In that case, please post the rules reference and blow the argument out of the water, so we can remove the offending item from the list.

thebetter1 wrote:
Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.

You have a point; I can't find it. So converting to put eyes on gets around the problem. However, Wraithlords without eyes on them will be unable to fire.

thebetter1 wrote:
Also, too many people are using the fact that these are not RAP rulings as proof that they must be supported under RAW.

What do you mean by that?

thebetter1 wrote:
The way it really works is that you nominate one ruin for your Techmarine to bolster. You do not have a Techmarine, so he does not bolster it. It then gets +1 to its cover save, regardless of whether any Techmarine was involved.

Could you please post the rule, both the original and the edited version without the Techmarine in it? I can't know what your edited rule is, so I may be arguing against something I actually agree with.

thebetter1 wrote:No, that is not debate at all. If you have a quote that proves the other side is right and you cut it down so that it does not appear that way, you made a fraudulent argument.

Please show how it's a fraudulant argument.

thebetter1 wrote:You do realize I dealt with 17 quotes on this page, yet you fail to see why I was reluctant to quote from the codex? I'm not going to do your work for you. Because I described the rule in detail, your comments accuse me of lying. If I were you, I would not continue that accusation, otherwise I might actually post the rule and prove you wrong.

Each side posts rule references. It is not the opponent's job to go and find rules that support your claims, it is yours. The opponent finds rules that support his claims. You then each post them, and consider each other's rules, and try to reach a conclusion.

Multiple people have claimed that conversions are illegal, but none of you have actually tried to defend it.

Not much time but:

BrB pg viii wrote:To play Warhammer 40,000 you will need an army - in other words a collaction of citadel miniatures

Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.

Ok, so lots of changed based on the last few pages. As many people have said, we've got to EIGHTEEN PAGES with an essentially silly but quite important thread. Let's not ruin it now by pointing out the same thing, over and over, with load of massively long posts, again and again, for pages on end. If you want to argue about a particular point, start a new thread where everyone can see the title and join in.

- The Shrike listing in the original post states 'Shrikes unit may not DEPLOY as infiltrators'. This stands. We never suggested that they lost any other special rules that apply to infiltrators. Outflanking counts, since he still can't join the unit until after they needed to state they were ouflanking.
- Sudden reading of codex reveals that Techmarines DO have the Independent Character rule.

Techmarines can increase the effectiveness of cover, reinforcing crumbling walls and re-welding badly damaged spars. {A} Each Techmarine can bolster a single ruin before the game begins. {B} When you deploy, nominate a single ruin in your deployment area for your Techmarine to bolster. The ruin's....(rules)

- Here's the offending rule. Now, many of these stupid rules depend on reading them in the most stubborn way possible. We accept that most special rules printed include a brief bit of fluff at the start. The first sentence is unquestionably the fluff bit. The rest depends on where you define the border between fluff and rules. If you say that rules start at point {A}, or that the WHOLE rule is 'rules' then you must have a Techmarine. If you say that the first two sentences are fluff and the rules start at point {B}, then you don't need a TechmarineI'm (thebetter1's argument). since this thread is all about being wilfully literal, I'm leaving it in for now, but if you want to discuss it in another thread, please do. If a conclusion if reached, I'll edit it! I also refer you to the related argument 'can IG fire non-lasgun weapons from a Chimera?'

- REMOVED Chargin from a Land Raider in the enemy's turn.
- REMOVED not being able to start the game.

- ADDED Tervigons and LD for test
- ADDED Culexus Assassins
- ADDED Nork and the transport/priest thing - he's only identified as an Ogryn in the FLUFF, and convention here is that anything before the stat line is fluff, not rules. Again, 'can IG fire non-lasgun weapons from a Chimera?' is related in this case - if we accept that anything written in the entire book is a game rule, we get into a lot of sticky situations....
- ADDED Tellion not unique
- ADDED Space Marine characters and bikes.
- ADDED Only Citadel Minis may be used.
- ADDED Models moving off the table

- CLARIFIED the bookshelf deployment rule
- CLARIFIED the Tau battlesuit/drone thing
- CLARIFIED Wobbly model rule
- CLARIFIED the DS movement thing - troops arriving from DS do so in the movement phase, which prohibits them from getting within 1" of an enemy, and therefore can't mishap when hitting enemy models.

It appears that this thread is not about RAW at all. You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written." You also arbitrarily ignore some rules in favor of others. On top of that, some things that I have quite clearly defeated (seriously, you are told to deploy on the table) are being added to the list. Therefore, I see no reason to continue posting here.

thebetter1 wrote:You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written."

Hold on there. FaQs are NOT RaW, even GW say so.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

Gwar! wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written."

Hold on there. FaQs are NOT RaW, even GW say so.

What's the difference between Errata and FAQs?
As it is rather obvious from their name, these documents include two separate elements - the Errata and the FAQs. In case you were wondering, 'Errata' is a posh (Latin!) way to say 'Errors', and 'FAQs' stands for 'Frequently Asked Questions'. It is important to understand the distinction between the two, because they are very different.

The Errata are simply a list of the corrections we plan to make on the next reprint of the book to fix the mistakes that managed to slip into the text (no matter how many times you check a book, there are always some!). These are obviously errors, for example a model that has WS3 in the book's bestiary and WS4 in the book's army list. The Errata would say something like: 'Page 96. Replace WS3 with WS4 in the profile of the so-and-so model'.

The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book.

The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'. They are, of course, useful when you play a pick-up game against someone you don't know, or at tournaments (i.e. when you don't have a set of common 'house rules' with the other player). However, if you disagree with some answers and prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules with your friends, that's fine. In fact we encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy. In other words, you might prefer to skip the FAQs altogether and instead always apply the good old 'roll a dice' rule whenever you meet a problematic situation.

http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=2&aId=3400019

I direct you to the tenets of YMDC, saying the following:

Lorek wrote:
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs.

Also, how is this page on GW's site any different from TMIR? The rules aren't important and they can be changed if you agree on it. Note the phrase in the paragraph you quoted: "prefer to change them in your games and make your own house rules.

"Source of Information" =! RaW

And read the Tenets again, it mentions TMIR, and how we do not use it in YMDC since it just makes any and all rules discussions pointless.

By TMIR, I can say all my Space Wolves are S10 T10 with 67" of movement. If you disagree, you are making the game unfun, for me. Therefore, you are knowingly breaking TMIR, and another word for Knowingly Breaking rules is Cheating.

Therefore, I win, because you cheated.

THAT is why TMIR is not used here on YMDC.

And before you say the FAQs are the Authors intent... they aren't. The SW FAQ proved that!

FlingitNow wrote:Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.

Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?

Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.

thebetter1 wrote:It appears that this thread is not about RAW at all. You claim that FAQs don't count, even though they are "rules as written." You also arbitrarily ignore some rules in favor of others. On top of that, some things that I have quite clearly defeated (seriously, you are told to deploy on the table) are being added to the list. Therefore, I see no reason to continue posting here.

Well, you've made lots of points. Some of those points have been argued over and over between you and other people. Sometimes you've made your point and the RaW STILL isn't clear, because other people disagree, and have equally valid readings. You just keep making the point again. Sometimes your point is wrong, or has already been covered earlier in the thread, as has been pointed out.

And some of your points are correct, and are oversights on MY part, and I've amended the list or removed things in respect of that.

If it is the case that there is a specific rule that states that you MUST deploy your models on the table, then quote it. You can quote an awful lot of lines without breaking fair use. Quote it, and I'll change the list. Or at least give a page, paragraph and line reference.

If your point is correct, I WILL amend the list, as has happened already with some of your points.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:Please find me a reference in the rules that allows you to use non-citadel miniatures and we'll let you use conversions.

Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?

Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.

yes, but you couldn't use forgeworld models as their not citadel

apparently that dkog army is ilegal

youbedead wrote:yes, but you couldn't use forgeworld models as their not citadel

apparently that dkog army is ilegal

Protip: Forge World are Citadel Miniatures.

I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.

Up until the site redesign there was Citadel logo on the left hand side of almost every page.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:I think Forge World is wholly separate from Citadel - I don't see a Citadel logo or copyright anywhere on the FW website. Note that for every official tournament GW clarifies that you can use Forgeworld models in the game, as long as they represent codex units.

7

Every copy of IA disagrees with you,

I can't remember the exact name of the mission, but in the Battle Missions book there is a scenario where the IG player can drop Stray Round markers. The rules state that you may not blow the markers to influence the landing point, but nowhere does it say that you can't fold or scrunch up the paper to stop it fluttering.

Valk

Possibly more of a modeling/converting issue, but...

Eldar aren't allowed to field models (including non-IC models) that do not display the gear purchased for them (but are allowed to field models which have too much gear, luckily).
-> Some models, such as the Swooping Hawks, must have gear added to them which aren't supplied in the GW product packages. Swooping Hawks generally miss their grenades.

This is a special rule under Using the Army Lists which is stated in the Eldar Codex on page 59, and provides more restrictions than the BRB does.

Find me a definition of citadel miniatures that states converted models are no longer citadel minatures. If I glue an Ork Choppa to a Space Marine, cast it and sell the model under the name "MasterSlowPoke Minatures", would I not get a C&D from Citadel?

Nowhere do the rules require you to assemble a kit as per the instructions.

The last line is debatable. But as soon as you start adding parts from another kit or another source or Green stuff the kit ceases to be the kit releaqse by Citadel and therefore ceases to be wholly a Citadel miniature therefore you are not allowed to use it...

Add this to this rule:

Eldar aren't allowed to field models (including non-IC models) that do not display the gear purchased for them (but are allowed to field models which have too much gear, luckily).
-> Some models, such as the Swooping Hawks, must have gear added to them which aren't supplied in the GW product packages. Swooping Hawks generally miss their grenades.

And thus you can never legally field Swooping Hawks as Citadel do not have a model that is usuable for them. Just like say a Tervigon or Thunderwolf Cavalry but more dumb because they do have swooping hawk models just not ones with the wargear required on them for you to field them...